GPL and LGPL not acceptable for Fedora!

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:58:11 -0700
Michael Thomas <wart at kobold.org> wrote:

> As a slight variant to this, the standard Tcl 'license.terms' file
> contains the following boilerplate:
> 
> "The following terms apply to all files associated with the software
> unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files."
> 
> Does this qualify as the same irrelevance as COPYING because it was
> not written by the author?  Some Tcl packages (bwidget) contain only
> this license file, but no reference to the license file in any of the
> source files.  Shouldn't this still be enough to qualify the license
> as 'TCL'?

If it's not modified we have to follow the letter of the file.  In the
case of GPL and COPYING, the letter of the file states that if no
version is indicated, /any/ version can be used, which results in
"GPL+".  I'd have to examine the license.terms file closely but the
basic idea is that whatever is in the file counts.  One would hope that
the license.terms doesn't have such an open ended pitfall within it.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070817/0f2d5ec5/attachment.sig>